From: Noddy on 14 Jun 2010 08:24
<OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
> But you happily drive around rear seat passengers without belts.
Where did I say that?
What I actually said was that I've driven plenty of cars that had unbelted
passengers before and it didn't bother me, and the reason for that mostly
was because those cars never had seat belts fitted in the rear. I carry very
few adults in the back seat of any car these days, and I'm not any more
bothered by the prospect of them wearing or not wearing a seatbelt than I am
in driving around a station wagon loaded full of goods that doesn't have a
It's a non issue to me. I've spend a great deal of my life riding
motorcycles, and in that role you appreciate very quickly that you're the
weakest link in the road chain. Cars, by comparison, feel remarkably safe.
Even without seat belts.
There are risks. I appreciate and accept them. If you don't, then wear your
From: Noddy on 14 Jun 2010 08:39
"D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message
> Same issue as in the ones raised in the Skaife thread.
> Govt's take control of our lives because they want to be seen "doing
> what's best for us".
In the best possible financial interest of course :)
> I agree that these days most people would still wear a seat belt even if
> it suddenly was no longer compulsory but that's because of habit, if it
> had never been compulsory I doubt that a high percentage would wear them.
> Because they are compulsory we have learned how valuable they are, without
> them being compulsory I wonder if we would be so convinced of their value?
That's a fair comment.
I guess it could be argued that education works well, and cigarette smoking
is a good example of that. The government can't ban smoking as they rely too
heavily on the revenue tobacco sales raise, but the anti smoking lobby is
happy to credit education with the reduction in cigarette consumption over
the last decade or so. I mean, just about everyone knows that smoking is bad
for you, and they mostly know that from having it drummed into them by
Seatbelts are similar I expect in that people know that they have to wear
one, but I think more people wear one today primarily because they consider
them to be a valuable aid rather than something they "have to do". I think
we've gone past the point of people simply wearing them to avoid getting
pinched to where people actually *want* to wear them because they can see
the value in them.
Bicycle helmets are a similar deal.
From: D Walford on 14 Jun 2010 09:17
On 14/06/2010 10:27 PM, Toby wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:23:02 +1000, D Walford wrote:
>> On 14/06/2010 9:40 PM, Noddy wrote:
>>> "Brad"<google1(a)vk2qq.com> wrote in message
>>>> The problem of making them non-compulsory is the increased cost to
>>>> society (we must be to blame) and the insurance would be prohibitive.
>>> As I said to Athol in another post, removing the compulsory requirement
>>> wouldn't automatically mean that people would adopt a wholesale non wearing
>>> attitude. In fact, I think the majority are probably very comfortable with
>>> the idea of wearing them and would feel more than a little ill at ease in
>>> not doing so. I'm certainly not suggesting that people don't wear them. Just
>>> that the idea that we need to be told that we *have* to wear them is
>> Same issue as in the ones raised in the Skaife thread.
>> Govt's take control of our lives because they want to be seen "doing
>> what's best for us".
>> I agree that these days most people would still wear a seat belt even if
>> it suddenly was no longer compulsory but that's because of habit, if it
>> had never been compulsory I doubt that a high percentage would wear them.
>> Because they are compulsory we have learned how valuable they are,
>> without them being compulsory I wonder if we would be so convinced of
>> their value?
> I was wearing them looong before they were compulsory. My entire family
> did. Belts were fitted as aftermarket bits to our cars as soon as they
> became available.
I remember wearing a seatbelt when I was a very young child in the 50's
in my Grandfathers car which was a 1929 Chev, he believed in seat belts
way back then but I think he was rare.
From: OzOne on 14 Jun 2010 18:02
On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:24:00 +1000, "Noddy" <me(a)home.com> wrote:
><OzOne(a)Crackerbox-Palace.com> wrote in message
>> But you happily drive around rear seat passengers without belts.
>Where did I say that?
>What I actually said was that I've driven plenty of cars that had unbelted
>passengers before and it didn't bother me
Yep..that's what you said.
OzOne of the three twins
I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.
From: John_H on 14 Jun 2010 18:18
D Walford wrote:
>I remember wearing a seatbelt when I was a very young child in the 50's
>in my Grandfathers car which was a 1929 Chev, he believed in seat belts
>way back then but I think he was rare.
One of the cars I owned back in the days of my impoverished youth was
a 1956 Vanguard with factory fitted lap/sash belts front and rear
(possibly optional rather than the standard fitment). Every
subsequent car I've owned also had them. IIRC correctly wearing them
became compulsory around 1974, but only in cars that already had them
fitted. At that point I'd been wearing them for years (as would've
AFAIK it's never been compulsory to fit aftermarket seatbelts (and
still isn't)... even passenger buses haven't had to have them at all
until relatively recent times. Which says heaps about the real intent
of the law IMHO!